1. US Congressional Research Service, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data (R42346; Mar. 3, 2017) at 1 n. 1, by Carol Hardy Vincent, Laura A. Hanson, and Carla N. Argueta (hereinafter cited as Federal Land Ownership). The federal government owns in fee simple an estimated 640 million acres of the 2.27 billion acres of US land (roughly 28 percent). Id. at Summary page. Ninety-five percent of federal land is administered by four major agencies: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 248.3 million acres or abut 39 percent of federal land; the Forest Service (FS), 192.9 million acres or about 30 percent; the Fish and Wildlife service (FWS), 89.1 million acres or about 14 percent; and the National Park Service (NPS), 79.8 million acres or about 12.5 percent. Id. at 1. Additionally, the Department of Defense (DOD) administers 11.4 million acres (nearly 2 percent of total federal land). Id. The remaining federal acreage is administered by numerous other agencies (an estimated 18.5 million acres or about 3 percent of total federal land). Id. These figures presume the four major federal land management agencies and the DOD have accurate data on the land under their jurisdiction. Id. at 1 n. 1. Furthermore, the estimate of 640 million acres excludes lands in marine refuges, national monuments, Indian lands held in trust, subsurface mineral interests, easements, and other interests. Id. The DOD figure also excludes lands managed by the US Army Corp of Engineers. Id. at 1 n. 2. To partially quantify these exclusions of acreage, the BLM administers 700 million acres of federal subsurface mineral interests, the FWS manages 471.1 million acres of marine refuges and national monuments, and the United States holds approximately 56.2 million acres in trust for various Indian tribes and individuals, not to mention US territories and lands outside the United States (the DOD manages 12,487 acres overseas). Id. at Summary page and 1 n. 3. Also, lands administered by a federal agency under easements, leases, contracts, and other arrangements are excluded from the estimate of 640 million acres. Id. at 1 n. 4. In sum, the actual total federal land interests in the United States is greater than 640 million acres.
2. “The [federal] land disposals built the country’s economic foundation, opened the West to settlement, and united the vast expanses of land into one nation.”Public Land Statistics—2015, US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, at 1 (hereinafter cited as Public Land Statistics). Federal land ownership began in 1781, with New York surrendering its claim to unsettled territory west of the Mississippi River, and by 1867, the federal government owned 1.8 billion acres. Id. The General Land Office, predecessor to the Bureau of Land Management, had been established to transfer federal land out of federal ownership. Id. Reportedly, as of 2015, nearly 1.3 billion acres of federal land have been transferred. Id.
3. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Sec. 102(a), Pub. L. No. 94–579, 90 Stat. 2743, 2744 (codified at 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701(a)(2017)). Explaining the background for this act, the Bureau of Land Management wrote: “The nation’s expanding population and mobile society created a demand for a variety of public land uses. Changes in public attitudes and a concern for environmental values and open space began to compete with the need for development and increased production.” Public Land Statistics, supra note 2, at 1.
4. Nevada (approximately 79.6 percent of the land within the state is federally owned), Utah (63.1 percent), Idaho (61.6 percent), Oregon (53 percent), and Alaska (61.3 percent). Federal Land Ownership, supra note 1, at 7–8. Federal land ownership is controversial. “Alaskans have been schooled by some of their politicians,” wrote one commentator, “to resent federal ownership of land in Alaska.” Steve Haycox, “Consensus on Alaska Federal Lands Is Better Than Polarization,” Alaska Dispatch News, June 3, 2016, at B-4, col. 2 (Opinion Editorial; Mr. Haycox is professor emeritus of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage). Cf. infra notes 229–230 and accompanying text. Some Americans believe federal land ownership is unlawful, and in rural Oregon in 2016, an armed protest over federal land ownership resulted in a forty-one-day occupation of a national wildlife refuge and the death of a protestor. Michael C. Blumm and Olivier Jamin, “The Property Clause and Its Discontents: Lessons from the Malheur Occupation,” 43 Ecology L.Q. 782–783 (2017) (hereinafter cited as “Property Clause and Its Discontents”). The incident was hardly the first armed protest against federal land ownership; in the twenty-first century alone, there have been at least five such events. Id. at 787. Social media has been cited as an “outsized influence” contributing to the risk of such armed conflicts. Id. at 821 n. 302 and 303 and accompanying text.
5. Wyoming (approximately 48.4 percent of the land within the state is federally owned), California (45.9 percent), Arizona (38.7 percent), Colorado (35.9 percent), New Mexico (35.4 percent), Montana (29 percent), and Washington (28.6 percent). Federal Land Ownership, supra note 1, at 7–9.
6. Of the remaining 38 states not mentioned in supra notes 4 and 5, the federal government owns an estimated 4.2 percent of the total land constituting those 38 states. See Federal Land Ownership, supra note 1, at 20.
7. Lambert, “Private Landholdings In The National Parks: Examples From Yosemite National Park and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore,” 6 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 35, 50 (1982).
8. See, e.g., Camfield v. United States, 167 US 518 (1897).
9. See, e.g., Minnesota v. Block, 660 F.2d 1240 (8th Cir. 1981), US Cert. den. in 102 S. Ct. 1645. In the second quarter of 2017, USA Today issued a special edition on National Parks, reporting that the National Parks had a record 331 million visitors in 2016. “Those visitors, we’re sure, went home with millions of imperishable memories of connecting with our country’s most magnificent landscapes, its wildlife and its history,” wrote the authors, who also made the PBS documentary, The National Parks: America’s Best Idea. www.ShopPBS.org/nationalparks. Dayton Duncan and Ken Burns, “Denali Towers As It Turns 100,” USA Today: Your Guide To Our National Parks (2017) at 6.
10. See infra notes 50 and 62–63 and accompanying text; cf. infra notes 65–69 and 81–83 and accompanying text.
11. US Const. Art. IV., Sec. 3, cl. 2.
12. Camfield, supra note 8, at 524–526. I believe Camfield stands for the proposition that Congress may legislate to protect the designated purpose or use of federal land. See infra notes 129–132, 146–152, and 173–175 and accompanying text.
13. United States v. Alford, 274 US 264, 267 (1927).
14. Hunt v. United States, 278 US 96, 100 (1928).
15. Block, supra note 9.
16. Block, supra note 9, at 1249; cf. infra notes 133–138, 153–159, and 187–191 and accompanying text.
17. Pub. L. No. 95-495, 92 Stat. 1649.
18. Block, supra note 9, at 1248.
19. “The motor use restrictions form only a small part of an elaborate system of regulation considered necessary to preserve the BWCAW as a wilderness,” wrote the court. “The United States owns close to ninety percent of the land surrounding the waters at issue. Congress concluded that motorized vehicles significantly interfere with the use of the wilderness by canoeists, hikers, and skiers.” Id. at 1251 (footnote omitted).
20. Id. at 1249 (footnote omitted); cf. infra notes 133–138, 153–159, and 187–191 and accompanying text.
21. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1331–1340 (2017).
22. Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, Pub. L. No. 92-195, 85 Stat. 649.
23. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1334 (2017) (emphasis added).
24. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1333(a) (2017), which empowers the Secretary of the Interior to “designate and maintain specific ranges on public lands as sanctuaries for their [i.e., wild free-roaming horses and burros] protection and preservation.”
25. Eugene R. Gaetke, “Congressional Discretion Under the Property Clause,” 33 Hastings L.J. 381, 401 n. 108 (1981)(hereinafter cited as “Congressional Discretion”). The use of the Property Clause power has lain dormant because Congress traditionally has found authority for its regulation of conduct on nonfederal land elsewhere in the Constitution. Id. at 390 n. 52.
26. Denali National Park and Preserve was originally named Mount McKinley National Park. See infra note 27. The park is said to be the location of the world’s first wolf controversy. The dispute led to Adolph Murie’s 1939–1941 scientific study, which concluded that Denali’s sheep and wolves were in proper balance. L. Mech, L. Adams, T. Meier, J. Burch, and B. Dale, The Wolves of Denali, 22–24 (University of Minnesota Press 1998), hereinafter cited as The Wolves of Denali. “Wolf predation probably has a salutary effect on the sheep as a species,” Adolph Murie wrote in his book first published in 1944. “At the present time it appears that the sheep and wolves may be in equilibrium.” A. Murie, The Wolves of Mount McKinley, XVII (University of Washington Press paperback edition 1985), hereinafter cited as The Wolves of Mount McKinley. “Wolves in Denali are a keystone species,” wrote Caleb M. Bryce for the National Park Service. “This means their presence is crucial in maintaining the collection of other animals and plants around them.” “Caleb M. Bryce, SMART Collars Reveal The Hidden Lives of Wolves” (updated in 2017) at: https://www.nps.gov/articles/denali-smart-collars.htm. For estimates of the number of Denali wolves, see infra note 32.
27. The park is estimated at six million acres, making it larger than each of the following eight states: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont. See Federal Land Ownership, supra note 1, at 7–8. In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (hereinafter cited as ANILCA), changing the park’s name from Mount McKinley National Park to Denali National Park and Preserve. ANILCA Title II, Sec. 202 (3)(a), Pub. L. No. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371 (codified at 16 U.S.C. Sec. 410hh-1 (2017)). Park land identified in ANICLA includes the following three areas: (1) the original acreage as of 1917 (1.9 million acres more or less) known today as Denali Wilderness within Denali National Park (ANILCA Title VII, Sec. 701(1)); (2) the new park acreage as of 1980 (2.4 million acres more or less) known as Denali National Park (ANILCA Title II, Sec. 202(3)(a)); and (3) the preserve acreage as of 1980 (1.3 million acres more or less) known as Denali National Preserve (id.). The legal description of Denali National Park and Preserve is codified at 16 U.S.C. Sec. 355(2017).
28. Kim Heacox, “Denali at 100: Park’s Treasures Have Weathered Well,” Alaska Dispatch News, March 19, 2017, Section E. Five groups of Athabascan-speaking Natives have lived in the area for hundreds of years: the Dena’ina, the Ahtna, the Koyukon, the Upper Kuskokwim, and the Lower Tanana. Shelby Carpenter, Images of America: Denali National Park and Preserve, 13 (Arcadia Publishing 2014). Denali National Park and Preserve is named after the 20,310-foot mountain called “Denali,” which means in Athabascan “The High One.” B. Sherwonit, Denali National Park: The Complete Visitors Guide, 14 (The Mountaineers Books 2013). In 2017, the Park Archaeologist wrote:
"As we celebrate 100 years as a national park it is important to remember that the Alaska Native history here has a depth over ten times as long, and the Alaska Natives whose ancestors lived on this land thousands of years ago still live here." Phoebe Gilbert, “Appreciating 13,000 Years of the Alaska Native Legacy,”Alpenglow: The Official Newspaper of Denali National Park and Preserve, Summer 2017, at 14, col. 3.
29. The Wolves of Mount McKinley, supra note 26, at XV.
30. Marybeth Holleman, “It’s Far Past Time For Alaska To Protect Denali Wolves With A Buffer Zone,” Alaska Dispatch News, May 18, 2016, at B-5, col. 1 (Opinion Editorial), hereinafter cited as Marybeth Holleman. On Dr. Haber’s work and findings, see Gordan Haber and Marybeth Holleman, Among Wolves: Gordon Haber’s Insights Into Alaska’s Most Misunderstood Animal (2013 University of Alaska Press), hereinafter cited as Among Wolves.
31. Marybeth Holleman, supra note 30.
32. The number of Denali wolves is unknown. In 2017, the National Park Service estimated the Denali wolf population at 82. Wolf Survey Data, Spring (approx. 15 March) and Fall (approx. 1 October), Denali National Park and Preserve 1986–2017 at: https://www.nps.gov/dena/learn/
nature/upload/Denali-wolf-population-508-compliant.pdf. The same report estimated the Denali wolf population had decreased from 143 in 2007 to 48 in 2015. In 2017, an online petition to protect Denali wolves, directed to the US Secretary of Interior and the Governor of Alaska, cited that decrease. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/423/700/229/halt-the-killing-of-denali-national-park-wolves/. A previous no-wolf-kill buffer zone on nonfederal land adjacent to Denali Park and Preserve was abolished by the Alaska Game Board in 2010. Bill Sherwonit, “Board of Game Bias Isn’t Based on Science,” Alaska Dispatch News, Mar. 14, 2017, at B5, col. 1 (Opinion Editorial). The Chair of the Alaska Board of Game opined in 2017 that “wolf numbers increased during the time the [no-wolf-kill] buffer was gone.” Zaz Hollander, “Game Board Rejects Denali Wolf Buffer,” Alaska Dispatch News, Feb. 26, 2017, at A11. In the book The Wolves of Denali, supra note 26, there is a chapter 9 entitled “Wolves in Perpetuity.” There the authors speculated that Denali herbivores outnumber Denali wolves by about 60 to 1. “Thus,” they wrote, “we can imagine from 70 to 140 wolves (depending on the year and season) wandering over the park day after day, one pack here and another there, moving among the moose, sheep, and caribou.” Id. at 177. Common sense indicates the impossibility of accuracy in any Denali wolf count, considering that “there is no bag limit to trapping wolves within the preserve and outside the park. The reporting of wolf kills during the subsistence hunt is entirely voluntary. Therefore, the number of wolves killed inside Denali National Park and Preserve during this hunt is unknown.” Among Wolves, supra note 30, at 185 n. 22. On subsistence hunting and trapping within the park, see infra note 43.
33. Tom Clynes, “Denali: How Can Six Million Acres Not Be Enough?,” National Geographic Magazine, Feb. 2016 at 83. I use the term “the First Family of American wolves” in the findings section of the hypothetical Denali Wolf Protection Act. See infra note 202 and accompanying text.
34. Marybeth Holleman, supra note 30. State wolf control plans can reduce wolf populations in national parks and preserves, indicating the need for state and federal coordination. See infra note 226 and accompanying text; see also Joanna Klein, “Protected Wolves Face Peril From Beyond Their Preserve,” Alaska Dispatch News, July 17, 2017, at B-3.
35. Kim Heacox, supra note 28, at E5. Visitor access to Denali Park and Preserve includes a restricted road into the park. “Denali’s Park Road,” Alaska: The Magazine Of Life On The Last Frontier, May 2017, at 37. The instances in which I saw one or more Denali wolves, all before 2010, occurred along that road.
36. Kim Heacox, supra note 28, at E5. In February 2016, author Bill Sherwonit wrote: “In 2010, the park teamed with the University of Alaska Fairbanks to begin a long-term study of wolf movements, wolf survival and wolf-viewing opportunities along the Denali Park Road, where most sightings occur. That first year, wolves were seen on nearly half of westbound shuttle-bus trips between the Savage River and Eielson Visitor Center, a distance of some 50 miles. Since then, wolf sightings have dropped precipitously, reaching lows of four percent in 2014 and six percent in 2015.” Bill Sherwonit, “Denali’s Wolves: Still Within Sight,” Alaska: The Magazine Of Life On The Last Frontier, Feb. 2016, at 48, col. 2. A 4–6 percent chance of viewing a wolf in the wild might be characterized as de minimis. Under the Internal Revenue Code, Congress has generally recognized 5 percent as being de minimis. See IRC Sections 2037(a)(2), 2041(b)(2)(B), and 2514(e)(2). I use the terms “insignificant” and “mere 5 percent” in the findings section of the hypothetical Denali Wolf Protection Act. See infra note 202 and accompanying text.
37. The Wolves of Denali, supra note 26, at 58.
38. Zaz Hollander, “Game Board Rejects Denali Wolf Buffer,” Alaska Dispatch News, Feb. 26, 2017, at A11.
39. Nathaniel Herz, “House Passes Bill To Add Wolf Protections Near Denali,” Alaska Dispatch News, May 19, 2017, at 1, col.4; cf. Edward Schmitt, “Lawmakers Can And Should Protect Denali Wolves,” Alaska Dispatch News, April 17, 2017, at B4 (Opinion Editorial). The bill, H.B. 105 of the 30th Alaska Legislature (2017-2018), is entitled: “An Act prohibiting the taking of wolves and the use of certain traps and snares in certain areas adjacent to the Denali Park and Preserve.”
40. The online petition referenced supra note 32 calls upon the US Secretary of Interior and the Governor of Alaska to halt the killing of the Denali wolf by (1) “Order[ing] the superintendent of Denali National Park to close all wolf killing in the entire park and preserve” and by (2) “Acquir[ing] a permanent wolf buffer conservation easement from the State of Alaska along the northeastern boundary of Denali, where most hunting and trapping occurs. This easement can either be purchased by the U.S. government, or transferred from the state in exchange for an equal-valued federal easement or asset elsewhere.” The Chairperson of the Alaska Board of Game is said to favor a land swap between the federal government and the State of Alaska to provide more protected area for the Denali wolf. See infra note 237.
42. US Const. Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2.
43. See infra note 203 and accompanying text. The hypothetical Denali Wolf Protection Act would override conflicting Alaska law under the Supremacy Clause. US Const. Art. VI, cl. 2.
44. Title VIII of ANILCA, supra note 27, addresses subsistence uses, and Section 202 (3)(a) of the ANILCA provides: “Subsistence uses by local residents shall be permitted in the additions to the park where such uses are traditional in accordance with the provisions in title VIII.” For a trapper’s perspective on trapping within the park, see Julie and Miki Collins, Trapline Twins, 14–15 (University of Alaska Press 2010 Edition).
45. See infra note 203 and accompanying text.
46. Alan J. Kania, Wild Horse Annie: Velma Johnston and Her Fight To Save The Mustang, 102 (University of Nevada Press 2012). In 1952, while attending a local county commission meeting in Nevada, Johnston witnessed a debate about the need to protect wild horses. Id. at 26–27. Ultimately, the commissioners passed a resolution she supported. Id. at 27. This experience awakened Johnston “to the notion that a grassroots effort could reverse the legislation that had been removing large quantities of wild horses for commercial exploitation in what many people believed was an inhumane manner.” Id. It was at a Nevada legislative hearing where Johnston received her nickname “Wild Horse Annie,” inspired by a remark made in passing by a Bureau of Land Management official. Id. at 36. With her sights set on federal legislation, Johnston campaigned on, convincing thousands of people to participate. It is said that “during the height of the Vietnam War, more letters were written to senators and congressmen about the wild horses and burros than the total number of letters written to the legislators concerning the war.” Id. at 102.
47. Mike Campbell, “Visits To Alaska’s National Parks Jumped In 2016,” Alaska Dispatch News, May 9, 2017, at A7. I include the words “nearly 600,000 visitors to the park in 2016” in the findings section of the hypothetical Denali Wolf Protection Act. See infra note 202 and accompanying text.
48. As of July 12, 2017, the online petition referenced supra note 32 reports over 338,000 supporters. National publications will no doubt continue to write on Denali wolves. See, e.g., Else Schmeizer, “Storied Alaska Wolf Pack Beloved For Decades Has Vanished, Thanks To Hunting,” The Washington Post, Aug. 9, 2016.
